If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

[ Next ] [ Last ]

(52) On April 28, 2012 at 3:00 pm Richard3G [1] said:

Sound can be defined either as a perceptual or a physical phenomenon. If it is perceptual then the answer to this question in "No", but if it is physical the answer is surprisingly tricky. Let me start by rephrasing the question to: "If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is around to hear it, does it produce sound-waves?"

There are only two places a tree can fall - in your experience/memory or in your imagination. So, our question must be rephrased again, to put in the missing but implied element: "Imagine a tree falling in the forest with no-one around to hear it, do you imagine it producing sound-waves?"

Before I annoy anyone I must be clear about what I mean about imagination. There are two kinds. Firstly, imaginative fantasy, for instance a world 200 million years ago populated by unicorns and fairies. Secondly, predictive/deductive imagination, for instance a world 200 million years ago populated by dinosaurs.

Predictive/deductive imagination is where we make a model of a world which fits with our experiences. We can also use it to make predictions. For instance we can use a mental model of the solar system to predict very accurately where we will observe the planets in the night sky.

We have become accustomed to considering our best predictive/deductive model as 'real'. So the dinosaurs 'really' ran around 200 million years ago, and the planets are 'really' whirling around the sun even when we aren't looking.

What's wrong with that? Quantum physics is the problem! The classic statement of the problem in the new physics is Schrodingers Cat. This cat, locked in a box, is poisoned depending on a quantum event. According to the quantum model, before the wavefunction collapses, the possible quantum events are superimposed, meaning the cat in the box is both alive and dead at the same time. When we open the box and look, the wavefunction collapses, and we observe the cat either dead or alive.

So what is "really" going on with the cat in the box? The truth is, we just don't know, and if you accept the Copenhagen Interpretation, as most physicists still do, the question is outside the remit of science, which is only concerned with testable predictions (e.g. what would you see if you open the box?). The only thing which seems certain is that we cannot keep believing as they would in the 19th century that the cat is either alive or dead, it's just that we don't know.

So, back to the forest. Using our predictive/deductive imagination, we imagine the tree falling to simulate as closely as possible what we know from experience and knowledge (I personally have never seen a tree fall in a forest, but I think I saw it on tv, and I can synthesise lots of aspects of my experience to come up with a simulation which I find convincing). And in the simulation, we probably imagine sound waves being created. But however convincing, it is still only our imagination. In the 'real' world, in that empty forest, the tree may be falling and still standing at the same time, or dancing an unimaginable quantum dance. By which I mean - what we don't know, we just don't know.

Remember the lesson of continental drift. In 1950, you could consult the science textbooks as discover that in 'reality', the continents aren't moving. By 1960, you would discover that they 'really' were. So, did continents change their minds? No, we did. When we construct a mental model, it can never be more than that. To call it 'real' is matter or religion, not science.

The answer to the original question? "We'll never know."

(51) On April 19, 2012 at 6:19 pm Therandomtypingperson [1] said:

WOW, everybody listen to this, okay.... everybody listen to this!! o.k.? if you were to go to comment "46" and that is very true!! if you aren't there to hear or see the tree, then how do we know that it fell in the first place COMMENT 46 is so very true!

(50) On April 19, 2012 at 6:15 pm Therandomtypingperson [1] said:

You need to site your sources. I know this is from wikipedia, but YOU need to say that.

(49) On April 7, 2012 at 10:48 am Michael Mufasa De Souza [0] said:

wrong, if you arnt around of course it makes a sound. thats like saying "because its on the other side of the city and i cant hear it, it therefore does not exist" are you also saying that other planets dont have sound? that the rainforest has no sound?!

with todays science these unheard sounds can be picked up by microphones and other recording devices.

to say that a sound doesnt exist is ignorant and to back it up with twisted evidence is ridiculous.

言多必失。(pinyin: Yán duō bì shī)

"If you say too much, you have to have made an error"

(48) On February 7, 2012 at 6:12 pm Neil Laferty [0] said:

For anybody who is still hung up on the notion that the dictionary definition of "sound" indicates that it requires perception to exist, try this on for size:

c : mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing

Note how the definition states that sound is the cause of hearing, not the other way around.

The stupid tree makes sound. Period.

(47) On February 3, 2012 at 6:41 am R Harrison [395] said:

What a load of tripe some of you put out to answer such a simple question. Good heavens my six year old grandson gave the best answer out of the lot of you. Quote "Yes it does, you are just not there to hear it". Unquote.

We were in the local library when I asked him how many arms does an Octopus have. Right away he came out with "An Octopus has eight testicles grandpa". And you think you are smart.

(46) On January 21, 2012 at 2:24 pm Mayuresh28 [0] said:

If you are applying this logic, then the answer itself is totally wrong. Because if you said that there was no one in the forest then how can it be known that the tree fell in the first place?!

(45) On December 1, 2011 at 2:47 am Physics-nerd [0] said:

hate to add to this...debate her, especially sense in a way this is a opinion on perception vs. science. However the argument that there is no sound is almost solipsistic. Technically the vibrations and waves that make up sound exist even if the energy is dispersed to the point that know one can hear it because no one is close enough. One CAN say how do you know that still occurs, well that is where solipsism comes in, how do we know anything, how do we even know anyone outside our mind exists? I think therefore I am, right? Just as we can't truly know world war II really occurred if you were not actually alive when it happened, it would be kinda ridiculous to claim it did not. Those arguing that it does not because no one perceives it, that's fine you are actually correct under your definition of sound, and as it is perfectly okay chose that definition or the one used by those of us arguing it does make sound. Therefore this argument is a bit pointless

(44) On September 13, 2011 at 12:58 am Blair Buysse [0] said:

No

Nothing exists until it is perceived by an organic life form.

Period.

(43) On August 30, 2011 at 3:01 pm Zaradax [0] said:

Short and sweet answer is no.

There is no sound without an ear drum and brain. The tree falling does not create a sound, its causes waves of energy/motion called sound waves. The energy/motion enters the ear drum and causes it to vibrate against the ossicles (inner ear bones) in turn sending the energy to the cochlea. Inside the cochlea, small hairs vibrate and generate electrical signals that are sent to the brain, allowing us to perceive the varying frequencies of sound waves as a sound.

The same would apply for light. Without a sensory/receiver to interpret it, it's just motion.

(42) On August 23, 2011 at 6:40 am Peyton Lankova [0] said:

TO THE PERSON WHO WROTE, "And, if you wish to prove it, set up a recording device and place a timed explosive device around the tree. leave the area well before the explosion."

..... Of coarse you will hear a sound recorded because you left a device in the forrest that converts sound, ie: the same as if you stayed there with your recorder. I think you forgot to runaway from the explosion dear, did it blow your mind?

Re-read the question, it asks if sound would be present without anything or one around.

tisk tisk

rookie error

(41) On August 6, 2011 at 9:57 pm TrivDiego [3] said:

The point of a philisophical question is that, no matter what, you can never come to a definite conclusion. The term "question" is slightly decieving, because a question without an answer isn't even a question at all. The point of a philisophical question is not to finally decide that one answer is right, but to explore the arguements for each and every side and to understand and to be intruiged by them, or it can be seen as a way of establishing some ground rules for everything, even if everything we have ever percieved or experienced has been an illusion. Every person can come to an idividual conclusion on a philisophical discussion, but to actually be able to convince eveyone else of your theory is near impossible. This arguement can go on forever, because no amount of "scientific facts" and "right answers" will ever get any of the people who are seriously engaged in this arguement to believe your answer.

(40) On June 29, 2011 at 7:50 am Whiter shade of plaid [0] said:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it... does that forest even exist?

Contextually, "no one", is an ancient, odiously human, self centered term.

Of course, the resident, maniacal Pine Beetle would "agree" the forest exists, although, from an entirely indifferent perspective.

So, "nothing" must replace "no one", to make the

'falling tree' query meaningful because "nothing" requires the least definition.

However, "nothing" implies a lack of comprehension, and without comprehension, on any dimension, the Universe itself would cease to exist.

Therefore, "nothing" is simply a crude, conceited human measure, mathematically intriguing, sociologically disconcerting, infinitely meaningless.

Finally, that which comprehends, is simply a collection of stardust Universes uses to "see" themselves.

A bland existence, perhaps by human standards... hence, the invention of religion and economy, added drama, fighting over who can move the greater distance from "nothing".

(39) On June 15, 2011 at 7:17 pm Skyebeka [0] said:

You have to understand exactly what sound is. I will start at the end of the process that creates sound then list the steps that create sound from step one. Sound is actually produced in the brain. Now, Step 1: A tree falls striking the ground. Step 2: The impact disturbs the air creating a pattern of waves. Step 3: The wave pattern strikes the eardrum of a human or animal. Step 4: The ear drum vibrates. Step 5: This vibration of the eardrum creates a signal which travels thru the nerves which are attached to it to the brain. Step 6: The brain receives the signal via nerves from the eardrum then converts the signal into sound. Again, sound is produced in the brain by converting nerve signals generated by a vibrating eardrum. Some may think that a mechanical recording device has the ability to hear sound. It does not. It is actually receiving an air wave pattern just as an eardrum would. Then it converts that pattern into a signal. It then records that signal. It now has the ability to output that signal as energy which would disturb the airwaves surrounding it just as the falling tree did. In short, disturbed air waves is not sound. It is the first step of a multi-step process that creates sound.

(38) On May 18, 2011 at 6:20 pm Fantasygeek2 [10] said:

It will make a sound. When anything falls on a surface that cunducts sound it will make a sound.

(37) On May 7, 2011 at 12:42 am Einsteinhawking [0] said:

The question is of a relative/philisophical nature and not necessarily science. Science dictates the observer collapses the wave function of photons (Particle/Wave Duality) just by observing or not observing, and so does the nature of the question change just by hearing or not hearing. What the question is asking is this; "Does the sound have a relative effect?" If you are "not" there when it falls,and there is no consequence of the fall, then no it does not make a sound. However, you can also "not" be there when it falls but the silent impact quietly dislodges a boulder from the ground and it rolls down a hill, out into the road, and you drive by in your car and strike the boulder and get a flat tire. Even if it is days later, the sound of the tree was heard because of it's relative effect. It's energy released is now relative. Time and sound are relative and so is everything else.

(36) On April 25, 2011 at 12:29 am Nick Kyner [0] said:

Listen ok, every thing makes sound. Sound is vibrations yet if a tree fell and know body was was there to hear it would still make a sound. If this was in space there would be no noise because vibrations don't travel in space

(35) On April 6, 2011 at 1:11 am Mihecela [0] said:

How do you know it fell?

nobody was around

(34) On January 26, 2011 at 12:19 am Michael Cleveland [43] said:

????? A metaphor for what? As a philosophical question, the answer is still the same. If you meant to say it's a rhetorical question, you would be incorrect. The question is legitimate, but until you define the terms, the only possible answer is irresolvable argument. Once the terms are defined, it answers itself.

(33) On January 25, 2011 at 10:44 pm Crowmanhunter [0] said:

Guys, guys, guys, you're doing it wrong.

It's a philosophy question, not science. It has nothing to do with how one interprets sound.

Another way of restating it would be, "If a man dies saving the world, but no one ever hears about it, is he still a hero?"

It's a METAPHOR.

Gosh.

[ Next ] [ Last ]

Sign in to add your own comment. (This only takes a few seconds.)